How Does PERA Measure Up?

“Celebrate that you are member service superstars – a low-cost, high-service system. Colorado PERA ranks 5th in the world when it comes to member satisfaction and service delivery.” – Tom Scheibelhut of CEM Benchmarking

Just like the investment side of PERA is benchmarked and evaluated, so is the administrative side of the plan. CEM Benchmarking, an international firm that analyzes pension fund service delivery, compared PERA to its peer group of 13 U.S. pension plans and to a larger universe of 71 plans around the world.

The range of U.S. pension plans varies from CalSTRS and CalPERS in California to the systems in Iowa, Kansas, and Utah. Global pension plans studied include ABP and PFZW in The Netherlands to the Ontario Pension Board and the British Columbia Pension Corporation in Canada, and numerous other plans in several countries.

For 2016, PERA’s administrative costs were well below the average of both the 13 funds in its peer group and the 71 pension funds evaluated across the globe. PERA’s annual pension administration costs were $51 per active member per year (or annually), inactive member, and retiree, or $10 below the peer average of $61 per year.

Source: CEM Benchmarking presentation to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, September 2017.

The reasons for PERA’s lower than average costs included higher employee productivity and lower costs for information technology and economies of scale. PERA had 3.4 full-time employees (FTE) per 10,000 members, below the peer average of 4.4.

PERA’s overall service score, measuring the customer service PERA provides its members and retirees, was 90 out of 100. Only four funds out of the 71 measured had higher service scores than PERA.

Source: CEM Benchmarking presentation to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, September 2017.

“CEM’s independent, third-party analysis of PERA’s operations confirms what members and retirees tell me about PERA’s customer service delivery. Being part of this global benchmarking effort allows PERA to learn from others in our industry and to implement good ideas that benefit our membership. And it affirms PERA’s commitment to the wise use of our members’ retirement assets,” said Greg Smith, PERA’s executive director.

The results of the CEM Benchmarking study further demonstrate the strong commitment of PERA to deliver exceptional service for PERA members and retirees. PERA provides this level of service at a low cost, protecting the retirement savings of its members and continuing to be one of Colorado’s best investments for members, retirees, and taxpayers across the state.

6 Comments

Tom Nesler says:October 4, 2017 at 7:43 pm

More proof that PERA and our retirement fund does not need the help, guidance or interference from the State Treasurer or various legislators who constantly attempt to weaken the program and powers we employees have granted to PERA.

I agree Tom. And it needs to be published and made public, how much retiree fund money PERA had to spend in legal defense due to the two frivolous lawsuits by Walker Stapleton, as he attempted to get confidential retiree data that he was clearly not entitled to by law. He has shown a trend of not looking out for retirees’ best interests, which he is required to do as a PERA Board Member. His performance needs to be made public before the 2018 Governor election, which he intends to be a candidate.

I’ve been retired over 20 years from the Jeffco and Woodland park systems and I feel lucky to have such a good retirement program. Your communication is tremendous and your efforts to remain strong with our investments and the crazy economy are to be commended. Keep up the good work !

I’m confused. Did we not go through this scrutiny of a deficiency in future funding? Why are we now visiting this again? I see the Governor has proposed in his new budget to “reduce” beneficiary compensation. What does that mean and how is the Board responding to this proposal to the legislature for 2018? If we are in that kind of fix again, why not just abolish the COL adjustment?

Thanks for the questions. In late 2016, the Board revised two major assumptions (the long-term investment rate of return and longevity) that increased the time it will take for the trusts to reach full funding. These changes increased the risk profile of the fund and extended the amortization period beyond the 30-year goal set by the Board. The Board wished to retain some amount of inflation protection for retirees.

Get Email Updates

Powered By

About PERA on the Issues

PERA on the Issues provides information and insight on a variety of topics related to managing a portfolio of more than $45 billion and providing retirement security for over 500,000 of Colorado’s public employees.Contact Us